Vista
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I am the GM in a campaign and I recently made a controversial ruling in my campaign and I wanted to run it by the board. While I realize the GM can make any rules that he wants, my campaign is strictly RAW, including errata, FAQs with postings by Paizo game designers before going into interpretations and house rules for things not covered in the rules.
The ruling was for an Aid Another Diplomacy check and uses the following rules.
1) Aid Another. "You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you’re helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another.)" The Aiding character had to make a Diplomacy check vs DC 10. This part was non-controversial.
2) Diplomacy Check Influence Attitude. "If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character’s attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character’s attitude toward you is decreased by one step." The Aiding Character rolled a Diplomacy check of 3, which failed the DC 10 check by 5 or more, therefore the Indifferent NPC became Unfriendly (towards both characters since they were making the skill check cooperatively). The principal character was still allowed to Influence Attitude towards the NPC based upon the new Unfriendly attitude.
I believe my ruling accurately represents the rules as written however my players threw a tantrum and one even quit the game over this ruling. Just wondering what the forum thought.
